Elon Musk is operating from corners to cut.
A Tesla proprietor in Finland recently had the paint of his Model 3 inspected, showing”extremely poor readings” for both hardness and thickness, as demonstrated by a new post by Ed Niedermayer at The Drive.
Since Tesla proceeds to negotiate the settlement of approximately 19 air quality violations by its Fremont, California paint store, concerns continue growing about the readily used paint that the business is using for its Model 3.
It’therefore unclear if there’s a connection between the business’s air quality violations as well as the standard of the paint which it’s using, but difficulties with paint are one of the several reasons that Consumer Reports dropped its Model 3 recommendation that year.
The review was asked by attorneys representing Joni Savolainen, a Model 3 proprietor who had been in disbelief at the damage to his automobile’s paint after forcing only 1,367 miles. The review was conducted by Finland’s Central Chamber of Commerce and was asked after”repeated attempts” for Tesla to correct the situation.
Savolainen and also a Canadian Tesla proprietor called Roger-Pierre Gravel are contemplating legal action against the business over the weak paint in their vehicles, which will be a problem that has been widely documented on Tesla forums, with reports of chipped paint.
The review report, written in Finnish, was previously available through a connection in the Drive post. Now, the connection is coming up dead.
The review report noted stone chips “the rear of the fender arches, the skirtings, the lower parts of the doors and the front… and the rear of the rear wheel arches,” as well as incomplete paint in interior regions round”the front and rear hinges, from the underside of the doors, the A and B pillars” and everywhere. The report also entails the fitting of doors and hatches”inadequate,” noting that poor fit contributed to paint wearing away in the doorway openings. The inspector also said that the way the Model 3’s wheels protrude in the wheel arch, in addition to the deficiency of mudflaps, led to the rock chip harm to Savolainen’s automobile.
The review used a typical hardness test known as the Wolff-Wilborn pencil scratch evaluation and the review ranked the Model 3’s paint hardness”F”, that is several degrees softer compared to the 2H-3H level that’s standard for many automobiles. Savolainen’s Model 3 was also found to have considerably thinner paint compared to the standard 110-115 microns. 106 microns were averaged by his automobile.
In areas where the paint had chipped, thickness was”well below the lower tolerance range given by the manufacturer” in accordance with the review report.
The paint around the bottom of the left and back doors quantified only 72 microns, while the bottom of the left and right front doorways quantified only 71 and 74 microns, respectively.
“In my opinion, there were discrepancies in the thickness of the paint on the subject of the inspection because, in my experience, automotive paint of the tested price range has a thickness of 110-150 µm and there are no completely unpainted areas in visible parts of the vehicle, doorways, or other areas. In addition, during my career in the automotive industry, I have not encountered a situation where the amount of rock blast on the sides of a car with this amount of driving and the conditions described. Joni Savolainen said that the car was driven only on permanent pavements. However, this cannot be verified by technical methods…
the total thickness of the paint on the subject’s flanks are extremely thin and the paint film is soft, which is why stone blemishes are more easily formed in these areas than in areas with a thicker paint layer. The thickness of the paint film is determined by the new car in the production process.”
Savolainen states that he’will continue to attempt to get Tesla to”make the situation right.” Good luck with this.
Buy Tickets for every event – Sports, Concerts, Festivals and more buy tickets